the relationship between headteachers’ supervision of
TRANSCRIPT
International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (Vol.4 Issue 2 | October 2020)
PAPER |58 e-ISSN: 2549-8525 | p-ISSN: 2597-7792 Page | 92
The Relationship between Headteachers’ Supervision of Professional
Documents and Academic Performance in Primary Schools in Embu and
Murang’a Counties.
Muthoni, M. J.1, Gitumu, M. W.2, Mwaruvie, J.3 1, 2, 3Department of Educational Administration and Management Karatina University Kenya
Corresponding author: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Supervision is a vital administrative tool employed by headteachers in ensuring
teachers’ effectiveness and competence in teaching and learning in schools. Over
time, pupils’ academic performance in examinations has been consistently low
in public primary schools and has created concern among education stakeholders
in Kenya and the world over. The objective of this study is assess the relationship
between headteachers’ supervision of professional documents and academic
performance in primary schools in Embu and Murang’a counties. A descriptive
survey research design was used. The target population was 14,786 respondents;
simple random sampling was used to select 256 of these. Data were collected
using questionnaires, interviews and an observation checklist. To ascertain
reliability, the instrument was piloted, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was
calculated as 0.93. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics involving
frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations and inferential
statistics, precisely, correlation. The results show that the development of
professional documents was common in primary schools and that the best
documents supervised by headteachers were schemes of work. The null
hypothesis tested was not rejected based on the correlation of r=-.044<0.05 and
P=0.732>0.05 between headteachers’ supervision of professional documents and
academic performance. The study recommends that headteachers should guide
teachers on the importance of consistency in professional documents. However,
headteachers’ supervision of teachers’ preparation of professional documents did
not impact positively on pupils’ academic performance at KCPE in Embu and
Murang’a counties. The findings of the study will serve as a reference for similar
studies in education administration and management.
Keywords: relationship; supervision; professional document; academic
performance
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.20961/ijpte.v4i2.43413
International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (Vol.4 Issue 2 | October 2020)
PAPER |58 e-ISSN: 2549-8525 | p-ISSN: 2597-7792 Page | 93
INTRODUCTION
Headteachers’ supervision of the activities that take place in learning institutions is
central to the levels of performances in the activities engaged in. Supervision is the
phase of educational administration which is concerned with improving
instructional effectiveness in learning institutions (Okumbe, 2007), and teachers’
supervision is viewed as a form of accountability in education (Hoyle & Wallace,
2005). As an accountability device, supervision denotes the obligation that people
give an account of the tasks they perform for others (Wilcox, 2000).The intention
of accountability is to make the providers of education accountable to those who
pay for their children’s education (Ehren & Visscher, 2006, p. 51-72), (Sergiovanni
& Starrat, 2007). Goldsberry (2008) defines supervision as an organisational
responsibility, with functions focused upon the assessment and refinement of
current practices.
According to Fisher (2005), supervision is a way of stimulating, improving,
refreshing, encouraging and overseeing certain groups (in this case teachers), with
hope of seeking co-operation and hence boosting pupil’s academic performance. It
is a useful measure of supporting teachers in identifying their strengths and
weaknesses and also of proposing ways of correcting any weaknesses before they
affect the entire system (Fisher, 2005). Supervision is viewed as an educational
program that helps school teachers review their professional skills and educational
weaknesses, which when implemented helps greatly to raise the standard of
education, leading to pupils’ good academic performance (Onasanya, 2006). Hoyle
and Wallace (2005) observed that in England and Wales the accountability of
teachers was engineered through payment by results, with teachers’ salaries based
on pupils’ performance in national exams and with funds provided by the
government to develop teachers professionally. OECD (2010) stated that over the
years, American educational progress had continued to stagnate. They further
contended that the graduation rate ranking of the United States ranges to the bottom
among developed nations. Studies conducted in the Netherlands, England and
Wales and some African countries on pupils’ academic performance and
headteachers’ supervision have differing views. Earley (1998), Nkinyangi (2006),
and Ehren and Vissccer (2006) believe that headteacher supervision is simply a way
of finding fault, which is why despite the practice there is little or no impact on
teaching and learning that can be translated into good academic performance.
Novicki (2011) observed that education in the African continent faced challenges
regarding supervision. He observed that where teachers were not fully supervised
and professionally developed, pupils’ academic performance was negatively
affected. Therefore, questions related to headteachers’ supervision of teachers have
been a subject of scrutiny among international, regional and local educationists due
to the escalation of poor academic performance in both developed and developing
nations. According to Grauwe (2007), African countries introduced teacher
supervision after independence. It is perceived as a central frame through which the
International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (Vol.4 Issue 2 | October 2020)
PAPER |58 e-ISSN: 2549-8525 | p-ISSN: 2597-7792 Page | 94
government can monitor and ensure school curriculum implementation (Wilcox,
2000; Hoyle & Wallace, 2005). Supervision acts as a control device in education
and thus it is indispensable and inevitable, as it plays an essential role in monitoring
quality teaching and learning, with the resulting aim of improved academic
performance (Chapman, 2001, p.59-73; Wilcox, 2000). It is argued that through
headteacher’s supervision of teachers, the government can ensure the
implementation of the national goals and objectives of education, thus enhancing
pupils’ academic performance. This performance is perceived as a mechanism that
prepares a competitive workforce intended to meet the challenges emerging due to
the globalisation process (Hoyle & Wallace, 2005).
Musungu and Nasongo’s (2008) study of Kenya found that teachers’ professional
development was perceived as one of the most effective means of improving their
professional skills and attitudes and of creating better schools, hence resulting in
improved pupils’ academic performance. The headteacher is an agent appointed by
the Teachers Service Commission (TSC), entrusted with the overall supervision of
other teachers and responsible for improving and maintaining high teaching and
learning standards. Primary school headteachers’ supervisory role is primarily
intended to help teachers improve their instructional performance and consequently
the academic performance of their pupils (Okumbe, 2007). Headteacher
supervision therefore promotes the capacity building of the individual (teacher) and
the organisation that brings a teacher’s behavioral change, resulting in better teacher
development. This helps them to improve pupils and their learning, and hence
realise good academic performance. To facilitate supervision, headteachers
occasionally attend in-service training courses and workshops which are intended
to improve their supervisory skills and hence improve pupils’ academic
performance. This study therefore intends to evaluate aspects of headteachers’
supervision of teachers’ and pupils’ academic performance in public and private
primary schools in Embu and Murang’a counties. More precisely, the objective of
the study is to evaluate the relationship between headteachers’ supervision of
professional documents and academic performance. However, it is shown that there
is no statistically significant relationship between such supervision and academic
performance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study employed a descriptive survey design, with a target population
comprising 896 individuals. The researcher further employed purposive, simple
random and stratified random sampling procedures. 20% of the teachers from the
sampled schools were selected, in line with Mugenda and Mugenda’s (2009) view
that a representative sample is one that consists of at least 10-30% of the population
of interest and is sufficient for providing the required information. Using the simple
random sampling technique, three teachers per school were selected, yielding a
sample of 192 teachers and 64 head teachers, thus making a total of 256
respondents. The data were collected using questionnaires, scheduled interviews
and an observation checklist, as recommended by Creswell (2003). Validity was
International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (Vol.4 Issue 2 | October 2020)
PAPER |58 e-ISSN: 2549-8525 | p-ISSN: 2597-7792 Page | 95
ascertained by supervisors and lecturers in the education department. To establish
the reliability of the research instruments, the tools were subjected to a pilot study.
Reliability was computed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which yielded 0.93,
which was considered to be within acceptable limits, as recommended by Kathuri
and Pals (1993). Descriptive statistics were used to compute the frequencies,
percentages, means and standard deviations. Inferential statistics, particularly Chi-
square goodness of fit at a significance level of 0.05, were also used to compare the
relationships between the variables. The results are presented using means,
percentages, figures, tables and thematic discussion.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The study seeks to assess the extent to which headteachers supervise teachers’
preparation of professional documents in primary schools. The teachers were
provided with Likert-scale opinions on such supervision and were asked to indicate
the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements shown in Table
1.1 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1= strongly disagree (SD), 2= disagree (D), 3= neutral
(N), 4= agree (A) and 5= strongly agree (SA). For the purposes of this study, the
researcher collapsed ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’ into ‘disagree’, and
‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ into ‘agree’, with neutral indicated as ‘undecided’. The
responses obtained were further used to compute a mean score (x) and standard
deviation(s) for each statement on a scale of 1 to 5. The maximum mean score was
5, while the minimum was 1, and the scores were interpreted as follows: disagree
(1.00-2.33), undecided (2.34-3.66) and agree (3.67-5.00). The responses are shown
in Table 1. Descriptive analysis of the head teachers’ qualitative data gathered
during the interviews was also used to discuss the findings.
Table 1. Teachers’ opinions on headteachers’ supervision of their preparation of
professional documents.
Statement SD D N A SA n �̅�
s
My headteacher
ensures that
teachers prepare
lesson plans for
every subject
taught
F 0 8 12 67 72
159 4.28 .81 % 0 5.0 7.5 42.1 45.3
My headteacher
ensures that
teachers prepare
schemes of work
F 2 0 4 49 104
159 4.32 .67
% 1.3 0 2.5 30.8 65.4
My headteacher
ensures that
teachers update
their record of
work
F 1 3 9 71 75
159 4.36 .73 % 0.6 1.9 5.7 44.7 47.2
F 1 2 5 74 76 158 4.41 .68
International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (Vol.4 Issue 2 | October 2020)
PAPER |58 e-ISSN: 2549-8525 | p-ISSN: 2597-7792 Page | 96
My headteacher
ensures that
teachers prepare
learners’
progress records
% 0.6 1.3 3.1 46.3 47.5
My headteacher
ensures that
teachers prepare
and update their
lesson notes
F 1 7 7 68 76
159 4.33 .80 % 0.6 4.4 4.4 42.8 47.8
My headteacher
encourages
teachers to
prepare teaching
aids for
classroom
instructions
F 2 1 9 72 75
159 4.37 .73 % 1.3 0.6 5.6 45.3 47.2
My headteacher
ensures that
teachers keep
learners’ class
attendance
registers
updated
F 2 2 5 47 103
159 4.55 .74 % 1.3 1.3 3.1 29.6 64.8
My headteacher
ensures that
students’
counselling
records are
updated
F 1 7 29 71 51
159 4.03 .86 % 0.6 4.4
18.
1 44.7 32.1
My headteacher
ensures that
students health
records are
updated
F 2 13 40 60 44
159 3.82 .97 % 1.3 8.2
25.
0 37.5 27.7
4.27
0.78
The findings in Table 1 indicate that the majority of teachers, 146 (87.4%), agreed
that headteachers ensured that they prepared lesson plans for every subject they
taught, as opposed to only 13 (5.0%) who disagreed with the statement. The
findings from the interviews support those from the questionnaires. Headteacher
(HT1) agreed with the statement that they supervised teachers’ preparation of
lesson plans, stating that
“A lesson plan is a compulsory document and every subject taught must have a
lesson plan and teachers are expected to present their lessons plan daily.”
He further stated that
“… in my school they are regularly checked and stamped by both the deputy
headteacher and me to ensure that teachers use and keep them updated.”
International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (Vol.4 Issue 2 | October 2020)
PAPER |58 e-ISSN: 2549-8525 | p-ISSN: 2597-7792 Page | 97
The finding demonstrates that headteachers supervise teachers’ preparation of
lesson plans, since they value the importance of such preparation prior to teaching
as it ensures teachers’ readiness and timely curriculum delivery. The finding
corroborates those of Fisher (2005), who expressed a similar view that lesson plans
are crucial documents which enable the headteacher to know the progress made in
topic implementation, the number of pupils attending a session, and the teaching
methods the teacher is employing. A lesson plan is the instructor’s road map of
what students need to learn and how this will ber achieved effectively during class
time. Similarly, Kimutai and Zacharia (2012) believe that the role of headteachers
as supervisors and school leaders is to ensure teachers make advanced, timely and
well-structured lesson plans before attending class. The lesson plan is an indication
of the standards of a teacher's preparedness and his/her effort in gathering
appropriate information for the lesson (Musungu & Nasongo, 2008). However, the
findings of our study were not entirely positive. Data gathered from some of the
interviewees contrasted with other responses; HT2 declared that
“In my school some teachers do not prepare all lesson plans due to the huge load
work. Some teachers have five different subjects to prepare for on daily basis,
making it difficult to prepare these alongside other documents (teaching aids,
pupils’ mark books, progressive records).
From the above findings, it is revealed that although the majority of the teachers
agreed that headteachers ensured they prepared lesson plans prior to their classes,
some need to be relieved of some work in order for them be adequately and
efficiently prepared. Prior preparation will help deliver quality content that will
boost pupils’ KCPE performance. The findings in Table 1 also indicate that the
majority of the respondents, 153 (96.2%) agreed with the statement ‘My
headteacher ensures that teachers prepare schemes of work’, with a mere 4 (2.5%)
being undecided and only 2 (1.3%) disagreeing. The findings from the interviews
supported those from the questionnaire. HT3, from a private school, remarked that
“The schemes of work are written before the teachers’ proceeds for holiday, and
are checked and stamped by the headteacher. If they don’t measure up to the
standards, the teacher is advised to re-write them”.
He further said that
“… checking schemes of work is also done in subject panel forums on a monthly
basis and compares them with the lessons plans ensuring they are detailed.”
Another interviewee, teacher T1, stated that
“Schemes of work are expected to be prepared during holidays and submitted on
the opening day by every teacher to be checked and stamped by the headteacher
and legitimized as legal documents to use when teaching”
The findings imply that the majority of teachers feel that the headteacher supervises
them in their preparation of schemes of work. It should be assumed that teachers
have no problems in preparing schemes of work because this is done only once at
International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (Vol.4 Issue 2 | October 2020)
PAPER |58 e-ISSN: 2549-8525 | p-ISSN: 2597-7792 Page | 98
the beginning of the term. The findings appear to agree with Maiyo’s (2009) study,
which found that the responsibility for checking teachers’ schemes of work as
professional documents lay in the hands of school headteachers, who are also the
schools’ internal supervisors. This is also in line with Usdan (2001), who asserts
that to improve pupils’ academic performance in national examinatiosn there has to
be a teaching scheme of work for each subject. The reason for this is that the scheme
of work provides schools with an organised system of content coverage for the full
period of the course in each subject. However, although the majority of the teachers
agreed with the statement that “My head teacher ensures that teachers prepare
schemes of work”, it was established from the observation checklist that the
documents were not written in depth and that some columns were missing or not
completed. The findings from the interviews also support those from the
observation checklist. HT4 reported that
“When teachers are overloaded with teaching of at least five subjects, a lot of
document doctoring is done where some teachers resort to purchasing schemes and
lesson plans from cyber cafes”.
He further said that
“… some teachers sat a time scribble documents just in case I or the deputy requires
them. So, they don’t tally with schemes, syllabuses and class notes.”
From the findings there is evidence that some headteachers were not performing
their supervisory role effectively. If they were more efficient and thorough in their
professional document supervision, teachers would be made to work harder and
always prepare before teaching lessons, resulting in better academic performance.
The findings in the same table reveal that the majority of the respondents, 146
(93.9%), agreed that their work records should be up to date, while 4 (2.5%)
disagreed with the view and 9 (5.7%) were undecided. However, this contradicts
one headteacher’s claim that out of nine lessons plans some teachers only prepared
three or four since they were overwhelmed with work. This can be explained by
the fact that although lesson plans and records of work should be prepared on a
daily basis, teachers seem to achieve less in this area. This could be understood by
the fact that most teachers have a heavy workload, as stated earlier, and so they
have little time outside the classroom to prepare up-to-date professional documents.
The findings further show that 150 (93.8%) of the teachers agreed that the
headteacher required them to prepare learner progress records, while 3 (1.9%)
disagreed, and 5 (2.5%) were undecided. However, although the majority of the
teachers agreed that headteachers ensured they prepared such records, data from the
interviews indicate that headteachers are not able to conduct supervision
effectively. For example, HT5 explained that
“I am not at times able to thoroughly scrutinize the teachers’ professional
documents as a result of being overloaded. This is because I have lessons to attend
to, administrative duties, and secretarial tasks, and attendance at meetings when
called by the sub-county director. Too many tasks hamper my supervisory roles”.
International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (Vol.4 Issue 2 | October 2020)
PAPER |58 e-ISSN: 2549-8525 | p-ISSN: 2597-7792 Page | 99
The above findings imply that head teachers do not always supervise all their
teachers’ professional documents as they also have other responsibilities to attend
to. Hence the teachers are many with a lot of documents. Headteachers cannot
afford the time to go through every teacher’s documents. When asked whether the
headteacher ensured that students’ counselling records were updated, 122 (76.8%)
were in agreement, while 29 (18.1%) had no opinion, and 30 (18.7%) disagreed.
This implies that more than a third of the respondents, 59 (36.9%), indicated that
some headteachers were not thorough in their supervisory role. This would suggest
a reason for poor performance, because if there are no pupil records, following up
on their problems and needs would be difficult, which could affect their academic
performance.
The same can be seen in the teachers’ strong concerns (65.2%) when asked whether
headteachers ensured that student records were kept up to date. The responses on
the preparation of professional records were not varied, as can be seen in the
standard deviation value of 0.7996. This means that the opinions of teachers on the
parameters provided regarding the preparation of professional documents were
highly similar, as revealed in the statement, ‘My headteacher ensures that teachers
prepare learners’ progress records’ where (SD=0.678). Similarly, the opinions of
the teachers related to the statement “My headteacher ensures that teachers prepare
lesson plans for every subject taught’ did not vary greatly, as the SD was 0.811.
This implies that the teachers generally agreed that they prepared lesson plans and
learner progress records. Musungu and Nasongo (2008) reported that effective
headteachers were those who supervised teachers’ work, and had appropriate
testing policies, schemes of work, lesson plans and lesson notes. They stated that
when professional documents are effectively supervised, this leads to adequate
syllabus coverage, so resulting in the promotion of good academic performance.
However, the findings of this study differ from those of Musungu and Masongo
(2008), because despite the teachers admitting that they prepared the required
documents, their performance remained very poor. There is therefore no correlation
between headteachers’ supervision of teachers’ professional and pupils’ academic
performance in the counties under investigation. In order to give a clearer
perspective of teachers’ opinions on headteachers’ supervision of their preparation
of professional documents, Figure 1 was computed to indicate the levels of
perception. Headteachers’ supervision of various documents is reflected, shown in
the form of percentages.
International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (Vol.4 Issue 2 | October 2020)
PAPER |58 e-ISSN: 2549-8525 | p-ISSN: 2597-7792 Page | 100
Fig. 1: Teachers’ opinions of headteachers’ supervision of teachers’ preparation of
professional documents.
Figure 1 shows a summary of teachers’ opinions on headteachers’ supervision of
the preparation of their professional documents. The figure indicates that the
highest supervision aspect was teachers’ preparation of schemes of work, as shown
by the 96.2% of respondents who affirmed that their headteachers ensured the
preparation of schemes of work, followed by the updating of learners’ class
registers, at 94.4%. The lowest percentage related to headteachers ‘supervision of
teachers’ updates of students’ health records’, at 65.2%, followed by supervision of
teachers’ counselling record updates. This demonstrates that headteachers need to
improve their supervision of health record keeping and pupil counselling record
updates.
It was hypothesised that there is no statistically significant relationship between
headteachers’ supervision of teachers’ professional documents development and
academic performance. Table 2 shows the computed Pearson correlation to
establish the relationship that exists between such supervision and pupils’ academic
performance in primary schools in Embu and Murang’a counties.
87,496,2 91,9 93,8 90,6 92,5 94,4
76,865,2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (Vol.4 Issue 2 | October 2020)
PAPER |58 e-ISSN: 2549-8525 | p-ISSN: 2597-7792 Page | 101
Table 2: Pear son corr elation table on head teacher s’ supervision of pr ofessional documents
KCPEperformance
Head teachers’ supervision ofprofessional documentsdevelopment
PearsonCorrelation
1 -.044
KCPE performance Sig. (2-tailed) .732N 55 55
Head teachers’ supervision ofprofessional documentsdevelopment
PearsonCorrelation
-.044 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .732N 55
The findings in Table 2 reveal that a negative correlation exists between KCPE
performance and the supervision of professional document development. The table
shows r= -0.044<0.05, implying that a decreasing negative relationship exists
between such supervision and KCPE performance. The table further shows that the
relationship is not statistically significant, at p=0.732>0.005. Therefore, the null
hypothesis proposing that ‘Headteachers’ supervision of teachers’ professional
document preparation has no statistically significant relationship with academic
performance in public and private primary schools in Embu and Murang’a counties’
is accepted. This implies that as the supervision of professional document
development increases, school performance falls. These findings are contrary to
those of Musungu and Nasongo (2008) in their study on the impact of head teacher
supervision practices on curriculum implementation. They report that supervision
of teachers’ professional documents positively affected pupils academic
achievements, establishing that 8% of the headteachers in high performing schools
in Vihiga county regularly checked schemes of work, class attendance registers and
lesson notes, resulting in improved student academic performance. However, this
study has revealed that teachers’ preparation of professional documents is not
completed in accordance with the expectations of employers. This could imply that
headteachers’ supervision techniques need to be addressed in order to make
improvements to pupils’ academic performance at p=0.732>0.005, meaning that
headteachers need to improve their supervision for a positive effect to be realised
on the performance of learners, hence improving examination outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which headteachers supervise
teachers’ professional document development in primary schools in Murang’a and
Embu counties. The teachers’ opinions on this show that the majority agreed that
headteachers ensured that they prepared lesson plans for every subject. The
majority of respondents also agreed that their headteachers ensured that teachers
prepared schemes of work and updated their work records . Most teachers also
International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (Vol.4 Issue 2 | October 2020)
PAPER |58 e-ISSN: 2549-8525 | p-ISSN: 2597-7792 Page | 102
agreed that their respective headteachers made sure that they prepared and updated
learners’ progress records and lesson notes. This means that the headteachers
recognise the importance of professional documents and their development in
improving academic performance in schools. The majority (92.5%) of teachers
asserted that their headteachers encouraged them to prepare teaching aids for use in
the classroom, which indicates that headteachers understand the importance of
teaching aids in the comprehension of content. Concerning the null hypothesis, the
study revealed that there is no statistically significant relationship between
headteachers’ supervision and the academic performance of pupils, so the
hypothesis was accepted.
The study aimed at assessing the extent to which headteachers supervise teachers’
preparation of professional documents in primary schools. It concluded that
headteachers’ supervision of lesson plan preparation was good; that teachers’
preparation of schemes of work was satisfactorily supervised, as they updated their
records of work in line with the expectations of the employer; that pupils’ progress
records were effectively updated; and that teaching aids were adequately prepared
by teachers. The best supervised documents by head teachers were the schemes of
work. However, headteachers need to largely improve their supervision of the
health and counselling records of pupils. However, from the observation checklist
it was established that teachers developed schemes of work which were fairly
detailed, and lesson plans and records of work that on average tallied with the
schemes of work, together with progress records, lesson notes and syllabus
coverage records. Consequently, the lessons plans were found not to tally with the
schemes of work, which suggests that they only prepare them for supervisory roles.
The lack of consistency and the dismal coverage of the syllabus implies that
teachers, despite creating professional records, are not delivering content, but
focusing more on accountability to their headteachers and other management
personnel. Headteachers’ supervision of teachers’ preparation of professional
documents does not impact positively on pupils’ academic performance at KCPE
in Embu and Murang’a counties.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Karatina University and the Ministry of Education of Kenya for the
opportunity accorded for my research undertaking. In addition, I acknowledge the
guidance provided by my PhD research supervisors, Dr. Margaret Wanjiru Gitumu
and Prof. John Mwaruvie.
International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (Vol.4 Issue 2 | October 2020)
PAPER |58 e-ISSN: 2549-8525 | p-ISSN: 2597-7792 Page | 103
REFERENCES
Chapman, C. (2001b). Changing classroom through inspection, in: school
leadership and management, 21(1), 59-73.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative and mixed
methods Approaches (2nded.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.
Earley, P. (1998).School Improvement after Inspection? School and LEA
Responses. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd
Ehren, M., & Visscher, A. (2006). Towards a Theory on the Impact of School
Inspections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 51-72.
Fisher, C. F. (2005). A New Agenda for Research in Educational leadership.
Amazon.com/adminbook.3html. December 25. Goldsberry, (2008). In language teachers supervision. M.B. Kathleen (Ed) 2006. A case
base approach, From https://www.addthis.com bookmark PhP, Retrieved, 4/42012.
Grauwe, A. (2007).Transforming School Supervision into a Tool for Quality
Improvement. Journal of International Review of Education (2007) 53:709-
714
Hoyle, E., & Wallace, M. (2005).Educational Leadership; Ambiguity .Professional
and Managerialism. London: SAGE Publication
Kathuri, N.J., & Pals, D.A. (1993). Introduction to Education Research. Kenya
Education Media Centre: Edgerton University Press.
Kimutai,C., & Zakariah, K.(2012). The impact of head teachers’ supervision of
teachers on Students, Academic Performance. Journal of Emerging Trends
in Educational Research and Policy Studies (JETERAPS), 3(3), 299-306
Maiyo, J.A. & Ashioya, L.A. (2009). Poverty Alleviation: The Educational
Planning Perspective. Department of Educational Planning and
Management, Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology.
Mugenda, A. & Mugenda, O. (2009). Research methods, Quantitative and
Qualitative Approaches. Nairobi: Acts Press.
Musungu L.L., & Nasongo J. W. (2008). The head teachers’ role in academic
achievement in secondary schools in Vihiga District, Kenya: Education
Printers.
Nkinyangi, S. (2006). Quality Standards and Quality Assurance in Basic
Education: Experience from Burundi, Eritrea, Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda.
Nairobi: UNESCO. Nkumbi
Novicki, M. (2011). Boosting basic Education in Africa:,Africa Recovery. Vol.
11,4. Retrieved from
http://www.saide.org.Za/resources/conf%202010/Maharaj,pravin-ODL-
The important of self-learning materials
OECD (2010). Viewing education in United States through the prism of PISA.
Retrieved from http://www oecd.org/united States/46579895.
Okumbe, K. (2007). Educational Management: Theory and Practice. Nairobi:
University of Nairobi Press.
Onasanya, S.A. (2006). The concept and practice of supervision and inspection in
Kwara State Public Primary School. (Unpublished M.Ed dissertation),
University of Ilorin, Nigeria
International Journal of Pedagogy and Teacher Education (Vol.4 Issue 2 | October 2020)
PAPER |58 e-ISSN: 2549-8525 | p-ISSN: 2597-7792 Page | 104
Pansiri, N.O. (2008). Instructional leadership for quality learning: An assessment
of the impact of the primary school management development project in
Botswana. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership,
36(4), 471-494.
Sergiovanni, T. J. & Starratt, R. (2002). Supervision: A redefinition (7thed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Usdan, M, C. (2001). Leadership of student learning. Redefining the teachers as a
leader institute of Educational Leadership, Washington DC.
Wilcox, B. (2000). Making School Inspection Visits More Effective: The English
Experience. Paris: UNESCO